As the article doesn't actually cite NASA or NOAA at all, but only utilizes two graphs designed by Watts which suffer from what he's always complaining about, namely no explanation as to how he arrived at the data, I'd say that this article is exactly what everyone obviously already suspects, or knows. That it's yet another example of bullshiat from the stupidest demographic on Earth, the global warming deniers. Subby, it's way past time to disassociate yourself from this sinking ship of idiots.

leadmetal:Except warmists are violating scientific method that at least used to be taught in gradeschool.

I say this with zero sarcasm: pretty much everything science or math related they teach you in grade-school is either overly simplified, outdated, or flat out wrong. It's just easier to teach children snappy parables that are wrong than actual, rigorous, science. It's also easier to give a bad answer than to admit we don't really know.

But I can't really blame educators, since clearly even the simplified version of science that you were taught was apparently too complex.

LordJiro:For that matter, the government giving energy companies incentives to clean up their act (whether it's by responsibly disposing of their waste products, or by investing in cleaner energy), while discouraging pollution is ALSO not socialism.

Very few people are advocating that we turn America fully socialist. There are shades of gray between Gilded Age America and Socialism, and right now, the we're leaning dangerously towards the former.

Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.

worlddan:MrEricSir: The comment section is that article is just sad. We've completely failed at teaching critical thinking skills in this country.

The problem is that when NOAA decides to hype the weather, it's fair comment that they don't hype the weather in the other direction. We see this same issue with economic statistics from the BEA. One number is released and then they constantly adjust it for the next five years and sometimes those adjustments lead to data that is the exact opposite of the original data.

At the end of the day people fight fire with fire. If the global warming promoters use the press to hype their cause I can't blame the skeptics for doing the same thing.

symbolset:If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

The US generates 3x the CO2 per capita of China, and 10x India. If you want to effect change you are going to have to convince America to give up meat, private vehicles and single family homes far from their work - and 10 years of life expectancy. That is what you need to do to convince the world that even Americans should not live like Americans and they should not aspire to that carbon rich lifestyle and 3.2 children. You have to convince America to give up The American Dream.

Good luck with that.

So, farkwit, if I'm a vegetarian driving a Prius, living in proximity to my workplace, I've convinced you? Do you have any idea how logic or science works?

leadmetal : Besides, even NOAA itself admits their "corrections" and "adjustments" are warming the present data.

You understand, of course, that NOAA's United States Historical Climatology Network tracks long-term averages such as the 10-year normal, and that the chart you posted doesn't show "errors" in their data, it shows that the temperature has drastically exceeded the predictions of their long-term model?

symbolset:If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds.

Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city.

VendorXeno:As the article doesn't actually cite NASA or NOAA at all, but only utilizes two graphs designed by Watts which suffer from what he's always complaining about, namely no explanation as to how he arrived at the data, I'd say that this article is exactly what everyone obviously already suspects, or knows. That it's yet another example of bullshiat from the stupidest demographic on Earth, the global warming deniers. Subby, it's way past time to disassociate yourself from this sinking ship of idiots.

Now, now...anti-vaxxers give the deniers a run for their money in the stupidity department...

Cpl.D:Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time. Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus. Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate. The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done. Notice the deniers never do the science themselves. Funny how that shiat works.

jaybeezey:Cpl.D: Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time. Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus. Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate. The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done. Notice the deniers never do the science themselves. Funny how that shiat works.

leadmetal:nickerj1: I'm always amused to how NOAA rounds to the nearest degree celsius when recording temperatures and then are like .... ZOMG!!!! 2 degree Fahrenheit anomaly!!!!! It's more like "No shiat, sherlock".

Every day of June 2012 your max temperature is 29.4 celsius, you record it as 29.Every day of June 2013, your max temp is 29.5 celsius you record it as 30.

When you're talking about assertions like "Average temperatures have risen more quickly since the late 1970s (0.31 to 0.48°F per decade)", why let false precision stop you?

Indeed. They have serious significant digits problem going on too.

Getting beaten over the head with how AGW is science and here they are violating the rules of science that are taught or at least were taught in grade school.

LordJiro: i.imgur.com

And that's how it always go, when the lying is exposed, the liars resort to 'but it's a good thing'. It's a good thing they want to do, to manage, to control our lives. It's a good thing, so it's ok for them to do what they've been doing. Be it climate change or NSA spying or multitude of other lies over the last century and half that have come to light.

Cpl.D: Sure it was. I appreciate the proof you've offered. And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.

I'm sorry you haven't kept up. Do try using a search engine. It's a political figure and thus is BS. Further more, even if we use the one that comes from paper counts, that's where the funding is. Govern ...

TheWhoppah:In geological terms, earth is still in an ice age.History tells us that we are in an inter-glacial period.History tells us that earth should continue to warm for the next 40,000 to 60,000 years before starting to cool again.Earth should be back in full-on global ice glacier mode in about 90,000 years.The ice has been on a 100,000 year interval for a few million years now.Current atmospheric CO2 is about one third of one percent.How do plants even survive these?When the dinosaurs went extinct in the late Cretaceous 65 million years ago the atmosphere was 20% CO2 and jungles covered Antarctica.Who are we to say that isn't a more "natural" environment for Earth?.Dinos ruled for almost 100,000,0000 years.Homo Sapiens have been around for a couple hundred thousand at most and modern history society probably less than 50K by the most liberal interpretations of "society."

ps: Most of the Prius automobiles in Texas effectively run on coal.

1) A couple degrees warming over 50,000 years is something we might be able to evolve with, both biologically and technologically. A couple degrees warming over 50 years -- not so much.

2) AGW is never going to get us to 20% CO2 (citation needed on that figure BTW), if only because we'll all die choking on our own exhaust long before we get to that point. Humans cannot survive in an atmosphere of 20% CO2.

3) Protecting the environment isn't about saving the Earth. The Earth has endured far worse things than Homo sapiens and will recover from anything we do short of large scale thermonuclear war. Protecting the environment is about making sure the Earth doesn't recover by getting rid of us.

4) Opposition to climate change is a conservative position, at least as "conservative" was defined before the Plutocrat Party started saying "four legs conservative good, two legs liberal baaaaaaad". We know we can survive, even thrive, in the climate as it is. Why mess with a good thing?

5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, but most Priuses run on gasoline. Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three. As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car. But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

m00:LordJiro: For that matter, the government giving energy companies incentives to clean up their act (whether it's by responsibly disposing of their waste products, or by investing in cleaner energy), while discouraging pollution is ALSO not socialism.

Very few people are advocating that we turn America fully socialist. There are shades of gray between Gilded Age America and Socialism, and right now, the we're leaning dangerously towards the former.

Actually, the Gilded Age wasn't that bad. Sure there were Robber Barons, but there are Robber Barons today. The only difference is that at least in the Gilded Age at least the Robber Barons were making products that people freely purchased. Today the Robber Barons exist because government takes money from the poor and gives it to them in the form of subsidies and contracts.

Socialism isn't that bad either. Scandinavia is probably the most socialist place on earth right now, and Norway, Sweden, Denmark, etc are nice places to live.

The US right now is completely off that spectrum. We're just a straight up kleptocracy -- the government takes what it would under socialism, but gives nothing back in the form of services.

What the fark bizarro America do you live in where there are no government agencies at all? No roads? No minimum wage? No courts? No police? No fire departments? No army/navy/marines/Air Force?

Lee Jackson Beauregard:5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline. Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three. As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car. But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

MrBallou:Aw, fark. Is it time for a "______________, therefore global warming is a fraud and you're all poopyheads" thread again already?

Gotta keep beating those drums or the lie won't become truthy, huh derpers?

I see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.

thefonz37:Lee Jackson Beauregard:5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline. Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three. As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car. But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

Not taking anyone's side, but I think the point was that if the car runs on electricity, and the electricity comes from a coal plant...

Which is true. Granted my grandmother's home town in Michigan has had a nuclear power plant for many years, and in the past 15 a large tract of land had solar power set up on it to contribute to the grid via the state.

However, most cities don't have nuclear power. And not everyone lives in an area where they can choose natural gas instead which is still a finite fuel. Just with a hell of a lot larger amount available. So, plug in car sucks in electricity created by a fossil fuel which adds to pollution.

jjorsett:MrBallou: Aw, fark. Is it time for a "______________, therefore global warming is a fraud and you're all poopyheads" thread again already?

Gotta keep beating those drums or the lie won't become truthy, huh derpers?

I see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.

Do you have alternate theories that are going to overturn electromagnetic and molecular theories, which demand that the bonds of carbon dioxide absorb infrared radiation?

If you do, please present them and claim your Nobel prize and the admiration of millions of scientists for being intelligent enough to uproot the foundations of our understanding of reality.

cwolf20:thefonz37: Lee Jackson Beauregard:5) Plug-in Priuses do exist, bu, but most Priuses run on gasoline. Mine goes as far on a gallon of gas as a Hummer goes on three. As Yogi Berra said, it ain't bragging if it's true.

6) I'd like to have a plug-in car. But I live in an apartment complex and they don't provide me with outdoor outlets, and going to a single-family home just to plug my car in doesn't seem like a net win.

Not taking anyone's side, but I think the point was that if the car runs on electricity, and the electricity comes from a coal plant...

Which is true. Granted my grandmother's home town in Michigan has had a nuclear power plant for many years, and in the past 15 a large tract of land had solar power set up on it to contribute to the grid via the state.

However, most cities don't have nuclear power. And not everyone lives in an area where they can choose natural gas instead which is still a finite fuel. Just with a hell of a lot larger amount available. So, plug in car sucks in electricity created by a fossil fuel which adds to pollution.

Point source pollution is much, much easier to control, and you don't have to worry about switching over the infrastructure of electric cars, as the cars don't care where the electricity comes from. Fossil fuel powered cars, not so much.

Damnhippyfreak:The thing about grade school science is that it isn't always complete, or tends to be a bit simplistic. For example, they do not teach you about averages. Trends are not taken from single measurements but instead averages of many, many measurements. Significant digits even out.

I went to public school, and even there I was taught more about averages than this. For example, trends and other forms of estimation are not empirical measurements, and trying to use them as such will lead you to all kinds of bizarre conclusions unsupported by reality, which is why a successful engineer learns to keep track of what the relative error is, and goes to great lengths to prevent the introduction of spurious digits generated by estimation methods.

jjorsett:MrBallou: Aw, fark. Is it time for a "______________, therefore global warming is a fraud and you're all poopyheads" thread again already?

Gotta keep beating those drums or the lie won't become truthy, huh derpers?

I see the global warmongers have passed into the phase where they think they no longer have to prove their claims, just roll their eyes and act like anyone who questions them is stupid. The high school girl approach to debating.

ongbok:That 2012 summer was hot and sunny. No matter what I did my grass stayed brown until August. Everybody's grass around here was like that. I thought I was going to have start all over with my lawn the next summer until the heat broke and we got a little cloud cover in August. When that happened the green came back.

thefonz37:Not taking anyone's side, but I think the point was that if the car runs on electricity, and the electricity comes from a coal plant...

This of course depends on what part of the country you live in. And further, whether or not a PHEV is a net reduction of GHG emissions compared to a conventional vehicle even if coal is a significant source of local power still depends on a number of other factors, such as the MPG of the conventional vehicle, what type of coal is being burned, the relative efficiency of the power plant, how many miles per day are being driven, etc.

Cpl.D:Pumpernickel bread: In the 90s when temperatures seemed to be warming markedly, researchers at the time put forth the notion that increasing CO2 in the air was the culprit and it seemed like the best answer at the time. Since then, temperatures have flattened out and some have began to wonder if a change in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10 of 1% over 50 years was really enough to dramatically affect global temperatures and ended up being tarred and feathered for daring to question the establishment

97% of scientific peer reviewed publications about climatology that made a claim that either man wasn't or was affecting climate change agree that we are.

3% disagree.

There is a scientific consensus. Science says humans are negatively affecting the climate. The only reason there's any confusion is because one side of the "discussion" is spending hundreds of millions of dollars promoting denialism a year to protect corporate profits, and the other side is busy either doing science or begging for funding to do science.

But every tiny shred of denialism is based on the deliberate misinterpretation of actual science done. Notice the deniers never do the science themselves. Funny how that shiat works.

Right, at the rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 of 1/10th of one percent over 50 years. Change due to man? Most would agree (including me)....enough to drastically change global weather patterns.....not sure. Also, a couple of other things.

1) If you look at the long tern temperature pattern, it looks more like a sine wave, yet most of those predictive models are based on a linear trend. Number of reasons for that...one, they didn't really know enough at the time the models were put together, or two, and here is where actual conspiracy theory stuff comes into play, is they did know about the nonlinear nature of the data and used linear models anyway so they could say "see, we told you reduction in carbon emissions would work!" when they knew all along the increase in temperature would taper off naturally.

2) The standard error associated with that model looks large. Those values are bouncing around all over the place. Another reason that one should be cautious in jumping to definitive conclusions.

I don't work for Exxon and would be the first in line to buy a Volt if the evidence was truly compelling, but....

Jon Snow:thefonz37: Not taking anyone's side, but I think the point was that if the car runs on electricity, and the electricity comes from a coal plant...

This of course depends on what part of the country you live in. And further, whether or not a PHEV is a net reduction of GHG emissions compared to a conventional vehicle even if coal is a significant source of local power still depends on a number of other factors, such as the MPG of the conventional vehicle, what type of coal is being burned, the relative efficiency of the power plant, how many miles per day are being driven, etc.

Here's a map showing that PEVs outperform most low MPG conventionals pretty much anywhere, and outperform traditional hybrids and high MPG conventionals in many places:

As you can see, there are significant regional differences. These are mostly due to the availability of renewable energy and nukes, as well as the type of coal being burned.

Cpl.D:leadmetal:The 97% thing was debunked ages ago. But even if true all it would mean is that 97% of scientists receiving money to study man made climate change believe it exists to continue the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

Sure it was. I appreciate the proof you've offered. And sure, scientists just love the glitsy lifestyles with all the glamor and fast cars and fancy women they get because all scientific grants also come with million dollar per diem giveaways, while those poor oil industry executives who have NO PAST HISTORY WHATSOEVER of doing anything slightly wrong in the interest or protecting their profits in the history of ever have to suffer with the small incomes they all probably make.

The fast women helps to compensate for all the attempts by deniers to get you fired, and the death threats.

symbolset:If you warmists weren't a herd of jerks you might win some hearts and minds. Also, if you practiced what you preached. Most of you are living the American lifestyle with meat 7 days a week in a single family home in the 'burbs where living is cheaper than near your work in the city. highly-paid members of the insurance, defense, and international shipping communities...

FTFY.

Argue about the cause all you like, but global climate change is happening.

And of course we don't expect the increase to be remotely linear if emissions stabilization programs aren't enacted (blue curve).

Change due to man? Most would agree (including me)....

Yes, the change is entirely due to humans. In fact, the terrestrial biosphere and oceans have absorbed a very large percentage of the total CO2 we've emitted. So what you see in terms of the increase in the atmospheric concentration is not just entirely human caused, without natural carbon sinks you'd see an even larger human-driven increase.

enough to drastically change global weather patterns.....not sure.

Why are you "not sure"? What scientific literature have you read on the subject? What is you understanding of planetary climate dynamics that leads you to the position that the current (and of course future) increase in GHG levels are not assuredly capable of altering the climate?

What do you think causes climatic change?

1) If you look at the long tern temperature pattern, it looks more like a sine wave,

This "looks like a sine wave" to you?

Or this?

yet most of those predictive models are based on a linear trend.

No, they're based on the physical response of the climate system to a range of potential emissions scenarios, not the extrapolation of a linear trend.

Number of reasons for that...one, they didn't really know enough at the time the models were put together, or two, and here is where actual conspiracy theory stuff comes into play, is they did know about the nonlinear nature of the data and used linear models anyway so they could say "see, we told you reduction in carbon emissions would work!" when they knew all along the increase in temperature would taper off naturally.

That's rich. I'll go ahead and take the word of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the word of people who likely haven't cracked a book open since high-school saying, "Nah, I don't feel like it's true."

Which translates to a change in the atmospheric CO2 of approximately 1/10th of 1% over 50 years. Percent change can be a very misleading statistic when used at the extremes of the distribution. In this case, CO2 started out as composing less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere and even after 50 years of emissions and an increase of 42%.... still comprises less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere. It isn't like we suddenly became Venus (97% CO2).

I come to take a look, and what do I find. The same old arses sucking the same old wind.

You know, when some group has been lying about data, and when they are called on it by someone who kept the original data they published, AND THEY THEN PUT THE ORIGINAL DATA BACK, anyone who claims they weren't cheating is a jackass of the first water, or simply a paid shill.

And, no, just because leftist media sources choose not to mention it does NOT mean it didn't happen. It just means the media think you are stupid enough to keep your faith in the propaganda they push on you, all information to the contrary -- and, from this thread, it's clear that they are quite correct when it comes to the bulk of Fark's leftist brigade; you really are that dense.

People have been publishing graphs of the changes made all along. Warmtards have always ignored them, or claimed the source wasn't leftist enough to suit them. Well, tough shiat -- your pitiful excuses just aren't cutting it any more.

I would also note that people who actually have science on their side are essentially NEVER the ones who fabricate data.As I have predicted, one-by-one, all of the lies and bad science of this socialist bullshiat position are being dismantled.You can fark around with science for a while, but eventually, she will hand you your ass.If you warmtards don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and got fooled, at least have the human decency to shut your pie holes.Seriously, beating this dead and decaying horse really makes you look stupid.

Pumpernickel bread:hich translates to a change in the atmospheric CO2 of approximately 1/10th of 1% over 50 years. Percent change can be a very misleading statistic when used at the extremes of the distribution. In this case, CO2 started out as composing less than one-half of one percent of the atmosphere and even after 50 years of emissions and an increase of 42%.... still comprises less than 1/2 of 1% of the atmosphere. It isn't like we suddenly became Venus (97% CO2).

Do you understand how and why GHGs change the net radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere? It is indeed the relative change rather than the total amount of the atmosphere that is important. Increasing the atmospheric concentration from 280-400 ppm has a much larger impact on the net radiative forcing than a change from 9600 to 1000 ppm would. This has to do with the relative amount of absorption that CO2 is capable of as its concentrations increase, which is why the relationship between CO2 and radiative forcing is logarithmic and not linear.

You don't seem to understand the first thing about this issue, but yet you seem to have a lot of very specific opinions about it. Where are you getting your information?

GeneralJim:I come to take a look, and what do I find. The same old arses sucking the same old wind.

You know, when some group has been lying about data, and when they are called on it by someone who kept the original data they published, AND THEY THEN PUT THE ORIGINAL DATA BACK, anyone who claims they weren't cheating is a jackass of the first water, or simply a paid shill.

And, no, just because leftist media sources choose not to mention it does NOT mean it didn't happen. It just means the media think you are stupid enough to keep your faith in the propaganda they push on you, all information to the contrary -- and, from this thread, it's clear that they are quite correct when it comes to the bulk of Fark's leftist brigade; you really are that dense.

People have been publishing graphs of the changes made all along. Warmtards have always ignored them, or claimed the source wasn't leftist enough to suit them. Well, tough shiat -- your pitiful excuses just aren't cutting it any more.

I would also note that people who actually have science on their side are essentially NEVER the ones who fabricate data.As I have predicted, one-by-one, all of the lies and bad science of this socialist bullshiat position are being dismantled.You can fark around with science for a while, but eventually, she will hand you your ass.If you warmtards don't have the integrity to admit you were wrong, and got fooled, at least have the human decency to shut your pie holes.Seriously, beating this dead and decaying horse really makes you look stupid.

That's rich. I'll go ahead and take the word of an overwhelming majority of climate scientists over the word of people who likely haven't cracked a book open since high-school saying, "Nah, I don't feel like it's true."

You're talking to someone who swore up and down on Fark that he had discovered incontrovertible evidence, due to some supposed analysis he ran, that the Earth wasn't warming and by implication that all of the different agencies (NOAA, NASA, Met Hadley, not to mention the satellite temp and reanalysis groups) responsible for the various independent temperature records were part of some diabolical conspiracy.

10 years in and we're still having essentially the same exact global warming threads.The same arguments, the same spin, the same bait, the same trolls.Is anyone optimistic that we won't still have them ten years from now?

/ If nothing else, the internet is proof positive that people LOVE re-runs.

Looking on Edmunds, the only EV under $25k is this hideous looking death trap ( link ) that has a range limited such that people who have to commute to work, as rent where the jobs are is too expensive, wouldn't be able to make use of it. Namely, low to mid income families. Check this game out ( link ) to see what it is like to not have money to spend on fancy eco-friendly cars.

Until people stop living paycheck to paycheck, the rent goes down, and EVs drop to the price of a Nissan Versa ($12k instead of $25k) or the ironically-named Chevy Spark (not the Spark EV that is $15k more than its less efficient brother), the only people driving EVs will be rich hipsters and others of similar ilk.

EllenTheBad:Cripes! The Earth has been passing into a new ice age for decades now. That's just the Earth's cycle.There's nothing we can do about it. The nasty heat comes before the cold, then the cold gets worse: greenhouse effect, then "nuclear" winter. Earth Science 101. It's happened before.

Climate change folks are saying we are hastening the advance. Maybe we are, maybe not. But one thing is sure: it's inevitable. Perhaps not in all our lifetimes--maybe we all have a hundred years--or two. Or fifty. Or Twenty (a meteor or comet could take us all out any time). NOBODY knows.

What we do now can mean something. The here and now is permanent. What comes after is out of our control, even though we think it isn't. shiat happens. No belief or religion will save us from that.

Here's where you're expecting me to say something like "be good to one another." Fark that. Hell, I don't care, as long as you don't have my home address. Do what you want. But know that you are mere dust in life's scheme of things. Or not. Hell, I have no idea what the Universe wants from us--if anything. I merely suggest you cover your bases.

/if I owned a house I'd have solar//have no idea how slashies work///going to bed now